Qumefox

If you just closed KSP.. You should be mostly ok.. The game autosaves every once in a while. So at most you should just have to redo your last launch. If you clicked 'end flight' you're pretty screwed though.

If that's how you want to play the game.. That's you're prerogative. Personally.. My likelihood of using quick save/load is dependant on time invested. The more time I invest doing something, the more i'll take steps to ensure all that time isn't wasted. And honestly, quicksave/load is only going to save you from accidents/bugs.. Not having enough delta-V for what you want to do.. or forgetting parachutes, etc.. No amount of quickloading is going to save you from having to start over due to that.

The more 'elegant' solution would have been to reduce weight instead of adding more wings. Generally being unable to get a plane off the runway usually means you have insufficient lift for the plane mass. You have two options. Add more wings, like you did, or make the rest of the plane lighter.

Thanks. You just killed any interest I had in watching this movie.

The thing is.. The devs have stated they aren't really shooting for realism beyond the physics.. Harvester, etc, have said that KSP is intended to be a game.. NOT a simulator. Yes we'll probably eventually get some form of stock payload fairings.. But only because they're cool.. Not for 'realism'.

So long as you don't have such a stupid-high TWR that makes small corrections impossible, and low enough ship mass that pod torque can rotate the ship fairly quickly, docking without RCS isn't that much harder than with using RCS.

Oh come on now. Yes KSP is in alpha, but you come across like it's unplayable and there's nothing to do.... which is FAR from the truth no matter how you look at it.

The devs have stated repeatedly that it's the latter.. KSP is intended to be a game.. NOT a realistic simulator. If you want a realistic simulator, I suggest you give orbiter a try. Actually I personally think the progress progression for KSP is fine. Most other games you don't really see anything at all out of until the game hits beta, and thus, is mostly done except for bugfixes... So most people have no clue how long it takes to build a game.. They don't get much information about the process except the very tail end of it that they can see. Squad has gone the opposite route and has had the community involved from the beginning.. and since most people really have no clue how long it takes to develop a game, they get impatient thinking it should be done in a few months.. because that's what they've seen before with beta's etc.. and that's just not how it works. And personally, even if they stopped development now, I can honestly say i've gotten my $18 (what it was when I got it) out of the game several times over. Also, the only answer you'll get in regards to when it'd done, is that it'll be done when it's done. In the past we've gotten large updates every 2-3 months.. Squad has said they plan to shift to smaller, more frequent updates since they switched to GIT. Squad learned long ago giving people hard dates only causes problems. Just look how the expansion thing blew up over harvester thinking out loud about something far in the future during a livestream. This is pretty much what would happen every time Squad missed a deadline.. With the only other alternative being to release buggy/unfinished updates.. Neither of which scenarios end very well... Them not releasing hard dates is much easier on everyone than the alternatives. KSP will be done when it's done. The fact that it's alpha software in development is plastered everywhere for all to see before you buy it.

You don't need mods to test RCS balancing. Just launch it to put it on the pad/runway, then alt-f12 to open the debug menu and click 'hack gravity' then test away. This is really about the only time I use the debug menu at all.. Testing for thrust balancing. If the devs ever add a 'center of thrust' marker for RCS, I wouldn't even have to do this.

It's related to both velocity and gravity. The deeper you are in the gravity well, the more pronounced the effect will be for a given velocity.

I personally usually start my gravity turn almost right off the pad. Not hugely, just a couple of degrees to the east, and if you time it right, gravity will have pulled your prograde to around 45 degrees shortly after you pass 10km. This lets you just follow the prograde vector to orbit with very little off axis (and thus, wasted) thrusting needed. The long burns deep in the gravity well of kerbin also maximise the oberth effect benefits. You can actually shave quite a bit of delta-V off a launch by doing a proper gravity turn like this and doing most of your burning low, as opposed to burning straight up to 10km then turning.. The higher you are, the less benefit you get from the oberth effect.

If the gravity is low enough, you can actually make orbit using only the jetpack. Flying without a navball is a challenge though. I know it's possible on minmus, I think it might barely be doable from Mun as well.

Sadly the root problem here likely is that orbital mechanics just aren't for everyone. My advice is to go back to the basics and learn to understand the basic underlying physics of why things behave the way they do when orbiting. You don't need to understand all the math behind it, but you need to be able to comprehend the basic concepts.. Because when you don't, this game is going to be insanely hard.. Especially when trying to do something like matching orbits and docking.

That's not what he meant.. He was talking about setting/adjusting maneuver nodes.. which has nothing to do with actual ship control..

Since everyone apparently missed it, Captain Kalawang's post is an example of sarcasm.... Also. the scale of the kerbal universe has absolutely nothing to do with it's current level of visual detail.. Switching to a 1:1 model wouldn't change anything visually. It would only make the game a lot more boring and tedious by making it take ten times longer to do anything. Also, consider how many people already complain about performance issues.. Then imagine how much worse it'd be with ten times the polys on models. The KSP devs have stated many many times that KSP is a GAME.. It will always be a GAME.. NOT A SIMULATOR. As someone else said. If you want a realistic simulator, play orbiter.

This.. From having been involved in pretty much everything from industrial maintenance to CIO level IT, I can pretty much attest to the fact that people who brag about being 'experts', seldom are. And generally the louder they are about it, the less they actually know.

All combustion needs is an oxidiser and something to burn mixed at the right ratio, and an ignition source.. If you had say, a propellant leak, say LOX and hydrogen, and something ignited it near the source before the gasses had time to disperse. It'd be quite possible to get a fireball in space... However the event would be extremely short lived as the burning mixture would expand spherically VERY rapidly and quickly lose sufficient fuel density and mixture ratio continue to support the combustion.

Actually no.. ASAS provides no force of it's own.. all it does is control other things that do provide rotational force.. Capsules, SAS modules, and RCS.. If you don't believe me, stick a mechjeb on an ASAS unit, launch it into space, decouple it so it's just the mechjeb and the ASAS module, and you'll find it has zero ability to rotate itself at all. All ASAS does is tell the parts of the ship that CAN impart rotational force what they need to do to point the ship in a certain direction. That's it. ASAS is just a brain. It has no muscles. And in regards to the OP.. I've played with this before.. the location of the ASAS module doesn't seem to matter on my install. It behaves the same no matter what.. The solution to ASAS induced oscillation for me is to just use less control authority.. For example.. Using less gimbaling engines, or locking the gimbals on all but a few.

Since the old thread i'd seen before apparently got lost in the crash, i'll start another, since I finally have my Mun base more than just a couple of parts now. This so far consists of four separate launches (for the base itself), and is completely vanilla save for kerbal engineer redux. These screenshots are of me sending the habitation module up, which I got around to tonight. Though I didn't think to start taking screenshots until I was already in the Mun SoI. Now, let's see everybody elses.

Yeah turn off the brakes heh.

Wait, you found a beeping hill on the northern hemisphere? Only one I knew of before was in the south. And nova has already said this easter egg is meaningless.. for the moment.. Eventually they plan to have a bunch of clues like this tied together though.

And playing KSP with lots of mods is like driving a car that has 400 spare tires.. Or in mechjeb's case, having a chauffeur, so you're not driving at all, only along for the ride. Some of us run pretty much vanilla because we LIKE the fact it's not just easy mode.

I'm fairly certain the first stage of the saturn V didn't have 12k delta-v, since it only takes 9.4k or so to get into LEO..

Because there is just too much stuff required for the UI to be usable to fit it on the screen at low resolutions.

Actually all fuel tanks in KSP have the exact same fuel/dry mass ratio. The only benefit to using larger tanks is to reduce part count. The current balance is set to not make things too easy, nor too hard(despite what some people may think). That being said. If you don't like it, you're perfectly welcome to edit the .cfg files for all the engines/tanks in your install to set the ISP's and masses to whatever you personally think they should be.